https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97902
--- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10) > (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #9) > > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #8) > > > (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #7) > > > > Can you please H.J. take a look? > > > > Maybe we can add a param that will drive the beviour? > > > > > > I consider this optimization similar inlining or tail call. > > > > How is that related? I don't see the connection in behavior. > > You can't do backtracing with inlining (well, you'll lose those frames). > > Here one of the callers will have a correct frame and backtracing still > works, no? Backtrace works with inlining, tail call and this optimization. > > > Should > > > -fno-omit-frame-pointer disable them? > > > > I would prefer to revert the patch 8e941ae950ddce1745b4d6819a7131908dd7de24. > > The reporter requested to preserve the frame pointer (with > > -fno-omit-frame-pointer) for backtracing capability and we optimized it out. > > > > What do you think H.J. ? > > I don't think that's good. It's perfectly valid with optimization. Agree. > One could spec a -fforce-frame-pointer but then one needs to define what > its guarantee is. Should it disable tail call?
